Search

IntroductionOpioid overdose deaths are increasing rapidly in the United States. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are effective and can be delivered in primary care, but uptake has been limited in rural communities. Referral to and coordination with an external telemedicine (TM) vendor by rural primary care clinics for MOUD (TM-MOUD) may increase MOUD access for rural patients, but we know little about perspectives on this model among key stakeholders. As part of a TM-MOUD feasibility study, we explored TM-MOUD acceptability and feasibility among personnel and patients from seven rural primary care clinics and a TM-MOUD vendor.MethodsWe conducted virtual interviews or focus groups with clinic administrators (n = 7 interviews), clinic primary care and behavioral health providers (8 groups, n = 30), other clinic staff (9 groups, n = 37), patients receiving MOUD (n = 16 interviews), TM-MOUD vendor staff (n = 4 interviews), and vendor-affiliated behavioral health and prescribing providers (n = 17 interviews). We asked about experiences with and acceptability of MOUD (primarily buprenorphine) and telemedicine (TM) and a TM-MOUD referral and coordination model. We conducted content analysis to identify themes and participants quantitatively rated acceptability of TM-MOUD elements on a 4-item scale.ResultsPerceived benefits of vendor-based TM-MOUD included reduced logistical barriers, more privacy and less stigma, and access to services not available locally (e.g., counseling, pain management). Barriers included lack of internet or poor connectivity in patients' homes, limited communication and trust between TM-MOUD and clinic providers, and questions about the value to the clinic of TM-MOUD referral to external vendor. Acceptability ratings for TM-MOUD were generally high; they were lowest among frontline staff.ConclusionsRural primary care clinic personnel, TM-MOUD vendor personnel, and patients generally perceived referral from primary care to a TM-MOUD vendor to hold potential for increasing access to MOUD in rural communities. Increasing TM-MOUD uptake requires buy-in and understanding among staff of the TM-MOUD workflow, TM services offered, requirements for patients, advantages over clinic-based or TM services from clinic providers, and identification of appropriate patients. Poverty, along with patient hesitation to initiate treatment, creates substantial barriers to MOUD treatment generally; insufficient internet availability creates a substantial barrier to TM-MOUD.

Telemedicine (TM) enabled by digital health technologies to provide medical services has been considered a key solution to increasing health care access in rural communities. With the immediate need for remote care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many health care systems have rapidly incorporated digital technologies to support the delivery of remote care options, including medication treatment for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). In responding to the opioid crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials and scientific communities strongly support and advocate for greater use of TM-based medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) to improve access to care and have suggested that broad use of TM during the pandemic should be sustained. Nevertheless, research on the implementation and effectiveness of TM-based MOUD has been limited. To address this knowledge gap, the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) funded (via the NIH HEAL Initiative) a study on Rural Expansion of Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder (Rural MOUD; CTN-0102) to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of adding TM-based MOUD to rural primary care for expanding access to MOUD. In preparation for this large-scale, randomized controlled trial incorporating TM in rural primary care, a feasibility study is being conducted to develop and pilot test implementation procedures. In this commentary, we share some of our experiences, which include several challenges, during the initial two-month period of the feasibility study phase. While these challenges could be due, at least in part, to adjusting to the COVID-19 pandemic and new workflows to accommodate the study, they are notable and could have a substantial impact on the larger, planned pragmatic trial and on TM-based MOUD more broadly. Challenges include low rates of identification of risk for OUD from screening, low rates of referral to TM, digital device and internet access issues, workflow and capacity barriers, and insurance coverage. These challenges also highlight the lack of empirical guidance for best TM practice and quality remote care models. With TM expanding rapidly, understanding implementation and demonstrating what TM approaches are effective are critical for ensuring the best care for persons with OUD.

BackgroundUnderstanding the costs and economic benefits of implementation has been identified by policymakers and researchers as critical to increase the uptake and sustainment of evidence-based practices, but this topic remains relatively understudied. Conducting team science with health economists has been proposed as a solution to increase economic evaluation in implementation science; however, these recommendations ignore the differences in goals and perspectives in these two fields. Our recent qualitative research identified that implementation researchers predominantly approach health economists to examine costs, whereas the majority of health economists expressed limited interest in conducting economic evaluations and a desire to be more integrated within implementation science initiatives. These interviews pointed to challenges in establishing fruitful partnerships when health economists are relegated to the "Third Aim" (i.e., lowest-priority research objective) in implementation science projects by their research partners.DiscussionIn this debate paper, we argue that implementation researchers and health economists need to focus on team science research principles to expand capacity to address pressing research questions that cut across the two fields. Specifically, we use the four-phase model of transdisciplinary research to outline the goals and processes needed to build capacity in this area (Hall et al., Transl Behav Med 2:415-30, 2012). The first phase focuses on the development of transdisciplinary research teams, including identifying appropriate partners (e.g., considering policy or public health researchers in addition to health economists) and building trust. The conceptual phase focuses on strategies to consider when developing joint research questions and methodology across fields. In the implementation phase, we outline the effective processes for conducting research projects, such as team learning. Finally, in the translation phase, we highlight how a transdisciplinary approach between health economists and implementation researchers can impact real-world practice and policy. The importance of investigating the economic impact of evidence-based practice implementation is widely recognized, but efforts have been limited due to the challenges in conducting team science across disciplines. Training in team science can help advance transdisciplinary efforts, which has the potential to increase the rigor and impact of economic evaluations in implementation science while expanding the roles taken by health economists.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic shed light on stark racial and ethnic inequities in access to care and accurate health information in the U.S. When COVID-19 vaccines became available, communities of color faced multiple barriers that contributed to low vaccine rates. To address this gap, the Equity-First Vaccination Initiative supported community organizations in five demonstration cities to plan and implement hyper-local strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccine access and uptake among communities of color. Purpose: To draw learnings from the experiences of the participating organizations, we applied a framework that integrated implementation science and health equity principles. Design and sample: In this commentary, we describe how we used this framework to guide qualitative interviews with community organizations, focusing on insights across five implementation elements (reach, design, implementation, adaptation, implementation outcomes). Conclusions: Learnings from this evaluation may help guide future implementation of similarly complex initiatives involving multiple organizations and sites to advance health equity during a public health crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals experience high rates of homelessness and criminal justice system involvement, underscoring the need for supportive housing services. To explore the service needs of this population, we interviewed providers (n = 11) and clients (n = 10) from eight supportive housing organizations working with SGM populations in Los Angeles County, California, USA. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to synthesize interview responses into themes (by domain and cross-cutting). Takeaways included the need for investment in systems of care for vulnerable SGM populations; the particular marginalization of Trans individuals and providers that serve them; the roles of supportive housing staff, residents, and leadership in cultivating an affirming environment; the prevalence of discrimination and stigma within supportive housing programs and broader society; and the complex interrelationships among SGM identity, homelessness, and criminal justice system involvement. These findings have important implications for supportive housing services and related policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) within service systems is critical to population-level health improvements - but also challenging, especially for complex behavioral health interventions in low-resource settings. "Mis-implementation" refers to poor outcomes from an EBP implementation effort; mis-implementation outcomes are an important, but largely untapped, source of information about how to improve knowledge exchange., Aims and Objectives: We present mis-implementation cases from three pragmatic trials of behavioral health EBPs in U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs)., Methods: We adapted the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and its Outcomes Addendum into a framework for mis-implementation and used it to structure the case summaries with information about the EBP and trial, mis-implementation outcomes, and associated determinants (barriers and facilitators). We compared the three cases to identify shared and unique mis-implementation factors., Findings: Across cases, there was limited adoption and fidelity to the interventions, which led to eventual discontinuation. Barriers contributing to mis-implementation included intervention complexity, low buy-in from overburdened providers, lack of alignment between providers and leadership, and COVID-19-related stressors. Mis-implementation occurred earlier in cases that experienced both patient- and provider-level barriers, and that were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic., Discussion and Conclusion: Multi-level determinants contributed to EBP mis-implementation in FQHCs, limiting the ability of these health systems to benefit from knowledge exchange. To minimize mis-implementation, knowledge exchange strategies should be designed around common, core barriers but also flexible enough to address a variety of site-specific contextual factors and should be tailored to relevant audiences such as providers, patients, and/or leadership., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Background: Evidence-based treatments (EBTs) are critical to effectively address mental health problems among children and adolescents, but costly for mental health service agencies to implement and sustain. Financing strategies help agencies overcome cost-related barriers by obtaining financial resources to support EBT implementation and/or sustainment., Aims: We sought to (i) understand how youth mental health system decision-makers involved with EBT implementation and sustainment view key features (e.g., relevance, feasibility) that inform financing strategy selection and (ii) compare service agency, funding agency, and intermediary representative perspectives., Method: Two surveys were disseminated to 48 representatives across U.S. youth mental health service agencies, funding agencies, and intermediaries who were participating in a larger study of financing strategies. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered on 23 financing strategies through quantitative ratings and open-ended responses. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and rapid content analysis., Results: The financing strategies rated as most relevant include braided funding streams, contracts for EBTs, credentialing/rostering providers, fee-for-service reimbursement (regular and increased), and grant funding. All other strategies were unfamiliar to 1/3 to 1/2 of participants. The six strategies were rated between somewhat and quite available, feasible, and effective for EBT sustainment. For sustaining different EBT components (e.g., delivery, materials), the mix of financing strategies was rated as somewhat adequate. Qualitative analysis revealed challenges with strategies being non-recurring or unavailable in representatives' regions. Ratings were largely similar across participant roles, though funding agency representatives were the most familiar with financing strategies., Discussion: Despite the breadth of innovative financing strategies, expert representatives within the youth mental health services ecosystem had limited knowledge of most options. Experts relied on strategies that were familiar but often did not adequately support EBT implementation or sustainment. These findings underscore more fundamental issues with under-resourced mental health systems in the U.S.; financing strategies can help agencies navigate EBT use but must be accompanied by larger-scale system reforms. Limitations include difficulties generalizing results due to using a small sample familiar with EBTs, high agreement as a potential function of snowball recruiting, and limited responses to the open-ended survey questions., Implications for Health Care Provision and Use: Although EBTs have been found to effectively address mental health problems in children and adolescents, available strategies for financing their implementation and sustainment in mental health systems are insufficient. This constraint prevents many children and adolescents from receiving high-quality services., Implications for Health Policies: Financing strategies alone cannot solve systematic issues that prevent youth mental health service agencies from providing EBTs. Policy changes may be required, such as increased financial investment from the U.S. government into mental health services to support basic infrastructure (e.g., facility operations, measuring outcomes)., Implications for Further Research: Future work should examine expert perspectives on EBT financing strategies in different contexts (e.g., substance use services), gathering targeted feedback on financing strategies that are less well known, and exploring topics such as strategic planning, funding stability, and collaborative decision-making as they relate to EBT implementation and sustainment.

Human computer interaction (HCI) and implementation science (IS) each have been applied to improve the adoption and delivery of innovative health interventions, and the two fields have complementary goals, foci, and methods. While the IS community increasingly draws on methods from HCI, there are many unrealized opportunities for HCI to draw from IS and to catalyze bidirectional collaborations. This workshop will explore similarities and differences between fields, with a goal of articulating a research agenda at their intersection.